No Relief To Sanjay Nirupam, Smriti Irani Gets A Clean Chit From Delhi High Court

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Brief Facts

Nirupam, a former Congress MP, had filed the complaint against Union Textile Minister Smriti Irani, alleging that on December 20, 2012, when the Gujarat Assembly poll result were announced, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader had made “defamatory and scurrilous comments” against him during the debate on ABP news, a private news channel by making direct aspersion on the character of the complainant (Nirupam). In 2013, Smriti Irani had already filed a complaint against Nirupam for alleging defaming her by saying “I don’t have to listen to you. It’s been four days since you have entered politics and you already think you are a great political analyst…till yesterday you were dancing on television and today you have become a politician.” during  the same debate. Ms Irani complaint was filed under Section 500 of IPC which gives provision of defamation and Section 509 of IPC which gives provision of uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman, to which court had put Nirupam under the trial process.

Contention

  • Participation in the TV debate one should maintain civility and decency as it is watched by audience through live telecast.

Held

Justice R K Gauba, gave two separate verdicts, in one it gives relief to Union Minister Smriti Irani, by quashing the criminal proceeding against he , initiated by Congress Leader Sanjay Nirupam on defamation and in another dismissed Nirupam’s plea of quashing the criminal proceeding against him ,initiated by Union Textile Minister Smriti Irani . For the interest of parties name of Smriti Irani and Sanjay Nirupam was not mentioned in the judgment and cause list. Ms Irani was referred as ‘PQR’ in the judgment, Mr Nirupam was referred as ‘XYZ’. The court said that “the drift of the discussion which led to the verbal duel shows that Ms. Irani was trying to block the criticism levelled by Mr Nirupam against the performance of the political party to which she belonged, and in that process she questioned his credentials by referring to the history of he having switched loyalties.” Justice Gauba said “She at no stage called him a ‘rapist’ or a ‘molester’ or an ‘eve teaser’, neither directly nor indirectly. Her responses cannot be construed but as a caution to him to remain within the bounds of decency and civility,” The court observed and stated “The continuance of such criminal prosecution on the basis of available material would be an abuse of the process of law”. So the relief was granted to Ms Irani and stated that the “manner in which the second respondent (Nirupam) has sought utterances or intervention of petitioner (Irani) to be construed is not correct”. And trial against respondent (Nirupam) will be continued thus dismissing the plea of respondent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -